Ed Yohnka could always count on the “knee-jerk, I-hate-Ashcroft types” to fill the seats for his talks on civil-rights abuses by the U.S. government in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But lately he’s seeing a new crowd: well-read, conservative citizens concerned about their rights ever since the Patriot Act took effect. The act, passed a month after the 9/11 attacks, gives law-enforcement officials new powers of surveillance and information gathering in the interest of homeland security.
Yohnka, communications director for the Illinois chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union, was at Springfield’s Lincoln Library a couple of weeks ago
to describe how the Patriot Act has had a “chilling effect” on freedom of speech.
Of particular concern, he says, is a part of the act that allows law enforcement
officials to inspect the records of public libraries to see what reading material
people have checked out and which Web sites they’ve visited.
About 70 people showed up to Yohnka’s Springfield talk, which surprised him
because “it was noontime and a beautiful day at the end of the week.” The following
Sunday, he gave another talk–in the affluent Chicago suburb of Glenview. “There
are not a lot of ACLU members there,” he says. Still, more than 350 people
showed. “I’ll tell you something, there’s a movement in this country of concerned
people. These are people who have read everything out there and have thought
the Patriot Act through, who support some things about it and oppose other things
and are saying ‘Wait a second, what’s happening here? What’s going on?'”
The government’s lack of candidness has increased concerns. In late May, the
U.S. Justice Department told Congress that it had requested patron information
from libraries only about 50 times since September 2001. But a University of
Illinois survey revealed that at least 178 public libraries received information
requests from the FBI in just the first year following the attacks.
Law enforcement officials have long been able to ask libraries for information
about patrons if those patrons were suspects in specific criminal cases. In
fact, the U. of I. survey found that more requests for information were made
by law enforcement agencies the year before September 11 than the year after.
But the nature of the requests are different, says Yohnka. Most requests for
personal information are open to judicial review, he says. Under the Patriot
Act, law enforcement officials can ask for the records of any patron–even people
who aren’t suspects in any case. Also, Yohnka says, the FBI can now order librarians
to keep its requests a secret–even from superiors. The U. of I.’s survey actually
included a disclaimer that reads, “If you received a request for information
that references [the Patriot Act], you may want to consult counsel about the
applicability of the secrecy requirement before” responding.
Local libraries apparently aren’t too concerned about the new rules. Neither
Lincoln Library nor the Brookens Library at the University of Illinois at Springfield
has changed its policies since September 11, 2001, unlike many libraries that
imposed stricter rules about such things as Internet use. And unlike some libraries,
neither has posted any warnings to patrons that information about them could
possibly end up in the hands of federal officials.
This doesn’t mean that local librarians aren’t aware of the Patriot Act’s
implications. Nancy Huntley, director of the Lincoln Library, says she is currently
discussing with city attorneys how her staff should react when information is
requested of them in the name of the Patriot Act.
And some libraries are fighting back. According to the U. of I. survey, one
out of every five library officials said they either “definitely would” or “probably
would” challenge a law enforcement official’s order to keep a request for information
secret. The Chicago-based American Library Association suggests that all requests
for personal information pass through a library’s legal representative, who
should be present during any information gathering by law enforcement officials.
“The Patriot Act is very troublesome to librarians,” says Jane Treadwell,
UIS’s head librarian. “I personally feel very strongly about civil liberties.”
In her office, Treadell displays a cartoon bythe State Journal-Register’s
Chris Britt; it shows President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft driving
a tank over the U.S. Constitution. She says, “One of the more chilling aspects
of the [Patriot Act] is the fact that we wouldn’t be allowed to talk about it
were any of our records to be subpoenaed.
“But the gist is,” she says, “while we regret the sort of intent of the Patriot
Act, we intend to comply with it fully.”
Public libraries, after 9/11
Last fall the University of Illinois’ Graduate School
of Library and Information Science sent surveys to the directors of 1,505 public
libraries serving populations greater than 5,000. Administrators were asked
about policies put into effect after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. The results here are based on 906 responses. What follows is a sampling
of the findings:
Percentage of libraries introducing new restrictions on
patron use of the Internet since September 11, 2001:11.4 percent.
Percentage of libraries since 9/11 that require patrons
to identify themselves when using the Internet: 55 percent.
Percentage of libraries since 9/11 that monitor patrons’
Internet use by reviewing computer files: 65 percent.
Percentage of libraries since 9/11 that have reported
the suspicious behavior of patrons to “outside authorities”: 20.2 percent.
Percentage of library collection purchases influenced
by 9/11: 79.1 percent.
Percentage of library staff after 9/11 “more likely to
notice the kinds of materials people are checking out”: 53.4 percent.
Percentage of libraries since 9/11 removing reading material
that “might be used to assist terrorists, such as [instructions for] bomb
making or bio-terrorism”: 0.1 percent.
This article appears in Jul 24-30, 2003.
